Ok people, it is summer, the weather is hot and I am itching for a fight because I am irritated. I am irritated because I have heard the stupid argument “You libertarians are living in an impractical world of dreams!” too many times.

Look people, I did not become a hardcore capitalist just by reading Ayn Rand and imbibing her divine wisdom. By the time I got around to reading Atlas Shrugged, I was almost a complete capitalist. Atlas Shrugged just suggested an interesting philosophical basis for what I had accepted in practice. Actually, for various reasons, I think that Capitalism is good in practice even though I don’t agree with Ayn Rand completely in theory.

It wasn’t any Economics course that turned me into a Capitalist either. Learning Economics gave me a lot of answers, but it was the questions that I was asking even before I had taken my first course in Economics that led me inexorably towards Capitalism.

And no, I did not become a Capitalist by following the Neti Neti philosophy. I did not say “Look, eveyone else has failed. The Americans seem to be doing something right. Let’s do whatever they are doing” and thereupon become a Capitalist.

So how did I become a Capitalist?

I became one by looking at the real world and thinking of possible solutions. You know, all those “Golden Mean” solutions that you guys keep proposing? I’ve already thought of them.

Except that I did not say “The government should do this” and then close my eyes and wish really hard that the Government does the right things, as you people keep doing. I thought long and hard about how to ensure that the government does all those nice things I wanted it to do, like help the poor, ensure fair competition, encourage scientific research, patronize the arts while at the same time maintaining an army and policing our streets. And all this of course without descending into tyranny.

I did not just decide that “We need to elect the right people to power. If we can’t do that, we deserve whatever we get.” I could not do that. I was realistic enough to realise that most normal people are possessed of ambition and greed. Most “great” men had some weakness or eccentricity that would show up under some circumstances. There would of course always be a few bad apples who’d have to be kept away from the rest.

So I wanted to set up a system that would reward the good in people, punish the bad and essentially encourage the government to do what I wanted it to do and nothing else. I thought of checks and balances. I thought that may be a presidential system would do the trick. I thought that may be we should decentralise the system. I thought of innovative ways of separation of powers. I won’t bore you with the details right now, though I may come to it later in the series. Suffice it to say that I did all the hard work that you, yes all you who are “for Capitalism, but…” should be doing.

I didn’t just imagine things. I thought through real situations. I looked at textile mills being closed in Mumbai and thought of what could be done to manage the process better. I saw the collapse of the Soviet Union and thought of which other system Gorbachev could have put in place to avoid it. I saw the descent of Rajiv Gandhi from a young, naive but idealistic Prime Minister to one caught in his web of corruption and thought which system would have worked to encourage the good in him and discourage the bad.

So I thought and thought and thought. Again and again I came across the same set of problems. A government that is designed assuming that the right persons will be in power will fail catastrophically the moment the persons in power are the “wrong” ones. A government that does one thing spectacularly well will do other things very very badly. Any rule that a government makes assuming a certain situation will always be overtaken by events faster than the rule makers can respond. A rule that tries to help the poor will always be hijacked by the rich. The more complicated a rule is, the more it will favour the rich and powerful, regardless of its intent. The more discretionary powers a government official has, the more the situation will favour the rich. Any government failure will never be corrected. It will always attract more funding.

Mind you, this is not some pathology unique to India. These are universal rules applicable everywhere.

So step by step I came to the realisation that the best form of government, one which ensures liberty, prosperity and at least a minimum standard of living for everyone is one which is strictly bound by a set of simple rules, one which is constitutionally confined to a few tasks, viz defence, policing, defining and defending property rights and enforcing contracts.

So I did not adopt Capitalist dogma for the sake of it. I adopted the dogma because the dogma is the most practical choice What you call as dogma, I call simplicity.

I am not saying that this will solve all the problems that we face. I am saying that it is better than the best available alternative. You might point out theoretical cases where government action would do good. There might be. But your solution also has to answer the question of “how are you going to ensure that the government does exactly what you want it to do and nothing else?”

Every government action that you are proposing has to pass, what I call the two-I test. The two Is are Information and Incentive. The government should be able to have the right Information at the right time to do exactly what you want it to do, and the government officials in charge should have the Incentive to do the right thing and nothing else. And you have an obligation to prove that your solution, under realistic circumstances (not the ideal theoretical ones that you are probably assuming) gives better results than the libertarian one.

And this is what bugs me. Chances are, you haven’t thought of this at all. Back when Socialism was a serious ideology, Socialists at least had some justification for why their system was better than the Capitalist one. For example George Bernard Shaw wrote entire plays on the subject. His “Doctor’s Dilemma” almost convinced me that socialised medicine was the way to go. (Forgive me, I was young and naive at that time) He carefully proposed an alternative and explained why he thought that putting health maintenance under democratic control was better than private doctors fighting disease. It turned out that he was wrong, but at least he put forward a theory that could be refuted.

Modern Socialists do nothing of that sort. In fact, to be accurate, they should be called IANASB (I-Am-Not-A-Socialist-But,). Remember that early Socialists claimed that Central Control would ensure balanced decision making, unlike Capitalism. Modern IANASBs don’t bother to make any such claims. They simply claim that Capitalism has failed to take care of their particular interest group, and hence it has failed and hence the government needs to do something. This puts them in the position of a whiner. They are not proposing solutions, but just complaining.

So as I was saying, I am bugged. I hereby declare war on all those who challenge Libertarianism. I will go after them, challenge them to come up with an alternative and will point out how their solution will fare in the real world vis-a-vis the libertarian solution.

Be warned that you are facing carnage, because I repeat, I have already thought through most of your points. I have done your hard work for you. I have probably analysed your problems in greater depth than you have.